• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

Status
Not open for further replies.
Amazer said:
Why haven't you done this statistical analysis yet? Or hired someone to do it for you? I'm sure in the large group of experts that are convinced of Amanda's innocence, there is at least one person who could do that.

Instead of working on the assumption that your claim is correct, why don't you try to prove your claim? Once you do that, I can take your claim more seriously. Without it, it's only so much hot air which can be, and is, safely ignored.
Click to expand...

Not surprisingly, I don't depend on your taking my claim seriously, Amazer, but I have to admit the prospect of such an analysis is intriguing, if challenging. I know where I can find a lot of data on faked lab results, but I will have to give some thought to how to find another case where the prosecution found, "tested" and used DNA evidence in the same way they did in this case.
 
Speaking of Meredith's cloths in the washing machine, could this be how she discovered rudy was in the house that night when she went to collect her wet garments? The machine is next to the bathroom with the unflushed toilet. Possibly, even the smell alerted her to something odd going on.
 
When Amanda states: The police asked me the same questions, the exact sequence of events, and I TRIED TO GIVE THE SAME INFORMATION as I had before: The truth is not hard to recall, no matter how many times it is asked. It is what it is. Why TRY?? Because, when you lie, you have to try and remember what your lies are. That is why the police ask the same questions over and over again. The liars will trip themselves up, and get anxious, and make mistakes. If you have nothing to hide, the same story will come out, and the truth doesn,t diminish, no matter how many times it is told. I think that because it was the middle of the night, and Amanda was tired, it was harder for her to remember all the lies. For an Honour student, her use of the English Language leaves a lot to be desired. And it shows more when she IS lying. When she talks about spending the whole night with Raffaele, she says: And we GENERALLY spend the whole night at ...It doesn,t ring true at all, and obviously wasn,t.
 
Mary_H said:
Not surprisingly, I don't depend on your taking my claim seriously, Amazer, but I have to admit the prospect of such an analysis is intriguing, if challenging. I know where I can find a lot of data on faked lab results, but I will have to give some thought to how to find another case where the prosecution found, "tested" and used DNA evidence in the same way they did in this case.
Click to expand...

I was under the impression that you are trying to push the idea that Amanda is innocent. Don't you think it would be helpful if people do take you seriously instead of seeing your name with a post and thinking to themselves "rodeo clown"?
 
stilicho said:
There will be two more appeals heard. Nothing much more than that. The best Sollecito and Knox can hope for is an eight year reduction in their sentences.
Click to expand...

So for Amanda, 26 minus 8 equals 18, less time off for good behaviour @ 50% equals 9, less 50% of the 2-and-a-half years already served... she could be out in 7 years and 9 months, and Raffaele in less than that? Is this right?
 
Amazer said:
Instead of working on the assumption that your claim is correct, why don't you try to prove your claim? Once you do that, I can take your claim more seriously. Without it, it's only so much hot air which can be, and is, safely ignored.
Click to expand...


We'll get on that statistical analysis as soon as the results of the negative controls are available.
 
Amazer said:
I was under the impression that you are trying to push the idea that Amanda is innocent. Don't you think it would be helpful if people do take you seriously instead of seeing your name with a post and thinking to themselves "rodeo clown"?
Click to expand...

I am not under the delusion that anyone who wants to believe Amanda and Raffaele are guilty is going to change his or her mind.

If there is actually anyone reading here who is undecided, I have faith they will be able to judge for themselves whose posts make sense and whose don't.
 
I believe that is correct, Nicole. Amanda would still be a young woman, able to live a hopefully productive life. Same with Raffaele and Rudi. Under the circumstances, a far lighter sentence than if found guilty in the U,S. And, for Amanda, in far nicer circumstances. It is far better to be in rehabilitative systems, than not, IMO, but others believe, I,m sure, that one is in Prison for crimes committed, and that it should be punitive, rather than helpful.
 
contamination versus secondary transfer

stilicho said:
. Are you in agreement with halides1 and Mary H that the evidence was contaminated? Just cough up what your beliefs are so that we can see where your starting point really is.
Click to expand...

Stilicho,

With respect to the bra clasp I have said that both contamination and secondary transfer are possibilities. An easy way to differentiate contamination from secondary transfer is to remember that contamination is concerned with when DNA was deposited and secondary transfer is concerned with how DNA is deposited. By definition contamination can only happen after an item is collected as evidence. Secondary transfer requires an intermediate object or person between the person who is the source of the DNA and the final object or person. Any given item of evidence may have DNA from secondary transfer or from contamination or from an event that is both.

The personal emergency to which I earlier alluded has abated but not gone away completely. I may be able to compose one or two messages again in a day or two.

Halides1
 
capealadin said:
When Amanda states: The police asked me the same questions, the exact sequence of events, and I TRIED TO GIVE THE SAME INFORMATION as I had before: The truth is not hard to recall, no matter how many times it is asked. It is what it is. Why TRY?? Because, when you lie, you have to try and remember what your lies are. That is why the police ask the same questions over and over again. The liars will trip themselves up, and get anxious, and make mistakes. If you have nothing to hide, the same story will come out, and the truth doesn,t diminish, no matter how many times it is told. I think that because it was the middle of the night, and Amanda was tired, it was harder for her to remember all the lies. For an Honour student, her use of the English Language leaves a lot to be desired. And it shows more when she IS lying. When she talks about spending the whole night with Raffaele, she says: And we GENERALLY spend the whole night at ...It doesn,t ring true at all, and obviously wasn,t.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure that Amanda meant she was having difficulty recalling what she had told the police in prior interviews. My read of Amanda stating "I tried to give the same information as I had before" is that she was telling the police the same account as she had in prior interviews but they didn't believe her and wouldn't accept her answers.
 
My point is, Chrianahannah, one doesn,t have to TRY and remember, if you,re telling the truth. How hard was it to remember, we watched a movie, we ate, we made love? No, they didn,t believe her. Police are trained in finding the truth. Amanda and Raffaele underestimated the police. Raff called the police stupid. It,s possible, the police already knew the discrepencies, and were pressing Amanda. THEN,,, It was Patrick, He's Bad, He did it!! Nothing would make an innocent person blame someone they knew was not involved, a suspect. Unless they,re evil.
 
halides1 said:
With respect to the bra clasp I have said that both contamination and secondary transfer are possibilities. An easy way to differentiate contamination from secondary transfer is to remember that contamination is concerned with when DNA was deposited and secondary transfer is concerned with how DNA is deposited.

Halides1
Click to expand...

Nobody has ruled out possibilities. We're just waiting for the evidence this is what happened. We're talking a total of more than 50 years of prison time so there ought to be something in the way of evidence already.

Where is it?
 
nicole said:
So for Amanda, 26 minus 8 equals 18, less time off for good behaviour @ 50% equals 9, less 50% of the 2-and-a-half years already served... she could be out in 7 years and 9 months, and Raffaele in less than that? Is this right?
Click to expand...

I think the prosecutors will seek stronger sentences for the other crimes they committed if they're allowed a reduction for the murder itself. This is not uncommon in the US, Canada, or the UK.

There is little chance they'll be out in less than sixteen years. If they hadn't continually interfered with the investigation they would have found the courts far more lenient--as European courts tend to be.

I admit this is only conjecture yet the tone of the superior courts has already been very much against leniency unless they tell the truth.
 
capealadin said:
My point is, Chrianahannah, one doesn,t have to TRY and remember, if you,re telling the truth. How hard was it to remember, we watched a movie, we ate, we made love? No, they didn,t believe her. Police are trained in finding the truth. Amanda and Raffaele underestimated the police. Raff called the police stupid. It,s possible, the police already knew the discrepencies, and were pressing Amanda. THEN,,, It was Patrick, He's Bad, He did it!! Nothing would make an innocent person blame someone they knew was not involved, a suspect. Unless they,re evil.
Click to expand...

You don't really know how you would behave in similar circumstances, capealadin; none of us does. Look at what Amanda wrote in the last paragraph of her e-mail on Nov. 4th:

"After that, I guess I'll go back to class on monday, although im not sure what im going to do about people asking me questions, because i really dont want to talk again about what happened. Ive been talking an awful lot lately and im pretty tired of it. After that, Its like im trying to remember what i was doing before all this happened. I still need to figure out who i need to talk to and what i need to do to continue studying in perugia, because its what i want to do."

When she writes about people asking her questions, and having to talk about what happened, she is referring to people's questions about the murder scene, not about what she did the night before the murder. This is the topic she has had to discuss, over and over and over again, in the three or four days following the discovery of the body.

Her mention of what happened before the murder is confined to, "im trying to remember what i was doing before all this happened."

If your roommate were murdered and for four days you had to repeatedly tell the story of what you found at the cottage, as well as who Meredith's aquaintances were, along with details about Meredith's habits and relationships, you might also put remembering what happened the night before at the bottom of your list of things to remember.
 
stilicho said:
Except that Knox's lawyer, especially, is known to have not only approved of her writing the 'diaries' but released portions of them on at least two occasions. This has been discussed here extensively already.

Do you know something that her own lawyers don't know?
Click to expand...

I am, as you will possibly know, suggesting that AK's own lawyer made errors in the advice they gave her regarding statements and writings. I already said further up on the board that her own side were responsible for releasing the diaries - or did you choose to overlook that? The word "except" seems to suggest that you did choose to overlook it.

Once more, for clarity (since what I thought were clear statements of my opinion seem to have mysteriously become incomprehensible): I think that Amanda Knox's own lawyer(s) made mistakes by seemingly not advising her to say and write nothing at all pertaining to the case. They compounded their mistake in my view by choosing to release her diary to the media. You may disagree with all or part of that opinion, but I think you'd find that the vast majority of criminal lawyers would agree with my opinion. Please can you read all my posts on this before misrepresenting my position back to me?

Oh, and I'll be reporting you to the moderator for your latest undignified, unwarranted and nasty little attack on me from a little further up the board. I hate to resort to this, but you really need to be put in your place regarding common courtesy and basic decency. Bye for now.
 
stilicho said:
There will be two more appeals heard. Nothing much more than that. The best Sollecito and Knox can hope for is an eight year reduction in their sentences.
Click to expand...

Ermmm....surely the best they can hope for is either new evidence or discrediting of existing evidence, resulting in a reversal of the verdict. I'm not suggesting that this is actually going to happen, but it's the extreme point at one end on the sliding scale of possibilities. The next best they can hope for is a sentence reduction, and the worst they can hope for is an increase in the verdict if the mitigating factors are thrown out. To say at this point that the appeals are more-or-less a formality is a little simplistic.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom